A Vaccination Dilemma

[Occams Barber]

A Vaccination Dilemma

Alex lives in the Federated Commonwealth of Cornucopia – a western style democracy.

Alex works for People Incorporated, a company whose employees work in close physical proximity to their customers. Think jobs like nurse, teacher, or carer for the aged or people with a disability.

Like most countries, Cornucopia has been plagued by Coronavirus but a vaccine is now available. People Inc has decided that, for the protection of its customers, its staff and the company itself, it must be able to guarantee that all staff are vaccinated. As a result, the Company decides to make vaccination a mandatory condition of employment.

Alex belongs to a religion which cannot morally accept vaccination, based on a link between the vaccine and cell material taken from aborted foetuses. Alex, politely refuses the vaccination on religious grounds. Since People Inc is not able to redeploy Alex to a non-contact role, it decides that, if Alex won’t accept vaccination, it has no choice other than to terminate employment. Alex points out that their actions violate the concept of religious freedom.

In an attempt to resolve the dilemma, both parties agree to submit the problem to an Ethics Committee for a decision based, not on law or constitutionality, but on ethical considerations.


You are a member of that Committee. What do you decide and why?

OB

 

[com7fy8]

I accept the fact that he does not want to use a vaccine associated with cells from an aborted unborn person; so I would not require him to be vaccinated.

And I understand that if he is not vaccinated he could directly kill someone by infecting that person.

So, since he is pro-life, he should have no problem with staying away from people, in order to avoid possibly killing someone by infecting the person.

My ruling would be > since he claims to be pro-life, I would expect him to care about the lives of vulnerable patients, by not working with them.

But I suppose he could get special clearance to work with COVID-19 patients . . . at his own risk, while isolating or limiting himself from anyone else, however is ruled by experts to be reasonable. And then, in case he got infected but came through it well, now potentially he would be naturally vaccinated, and this might become renewed by repeat exposures.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Eh. As someone who has gotten the shot myself (getting the second one on the 11th), who works on the covid floor of a hospital (ICU), and feels very strongly having seen what the disease does to the most vulnerable of folks... This is something that I feel very strongly about.

I would say he should have the freedom to reject the vaccine and keep his job.

Now, working in a hoispital setting like I do, we wear propper PPE at all times. I would say that if someone refuses vaccines, they should be forced to wear suitable PPE to prevent a possible spreading as much as possible, but if they work in a setting with a vulnerable population, they need to take extra precautions so they limit the possability of spreading illnesses as much as possible

This was the procedure at my hospital for those who refused vaccines before covid. People who refused vaccines were forced to wear PPE all the time. Now we all have to anyway. Doesn't really change much for those who refused vaccines beforehand.

 

[Mark Quayle]

A Vaccination Dilemma

Alex lives in the Federated Commonwealth of Cornucopia – a western style democracy.

Alex works for People Incorporated, a company whose employees work in close physical proximity to their customers. Think jobs like nurse, teacher, or carer for the aged or people with a disability.

Like most countries, Cornucopia has been plagued by Coronavirus but a vaccine is now available. People Inc has decided that, for the protection of its customers, its staff and the company itself, it must be able to guarantee that all staff are vaccinated. As a result, the Company decides to make vaccination a mandatory condition of employment.

Alex belongs to a religion which cannot morally accept vaccination, based on a link between the vaccine and cell material taken from aborted foetuses. Alex, politely refuses the vaccination on religious grounds. Since People Inc is not able to redeploy Alex to a non-contact role, it decides that, if Alex won’t accept vaccination, it has no choice other than to terminate employment. Alex points out that their actions violate the concept of religious freedom.

In an attempt to resolve the dilemma, both parties agree to submit the problem to an Ethical Committee for a decision based, not on law or constitutionality, but on ethical considerations.


You are a member of that Committee. What do you decide and why?

OB

I'm believe irretrievably in Christ; but it is not for ethical reasons, but because I don't trust anything anybody is saying about any of this politicized Covid business, I not only don't see the need for the vaccine, myself, but I am bent against it.

HOWEVER: If I own my house, and require everyone coming in to be vaccinated, they must be vaccinated, or they must not enter. It really is that simple. If I own my business, my employees must toe the line.

Now if Alex can show that he was put on the path of unemployment due to his religion (and not merely due to his choice concerning the vaccine) he might have something to object to.

 

[Occams Barber]

I accept the fact that he does not want to use a vaccine associated with cells from an aborted unborn person; so I would not require him to be vaccinated.

And I understand that if he is not vaccinated he could directly kill someone by infecting that person.

So, since he is pro-life, he should have no problem with staying away from people, in order to avoid possibly killing someone by infecting the person.

My ruling would be > since he claims to be pro-life, I would expect him to care about the lives of vulnerable patients, by not working with them.

But I suppose he could get special clearance to work with COVID-19 patients . . . at his own risk, while isolating or limiting himself from anyone else, however is ruled by experts to be reasonable. And then, in case he got infected but came through it well, now potentially he would be naturally vaccinated, and this might become renewed by repeat exposures.

I've purposely tried to eliminate wiggle room by stipulating that non-contact work is not possible. Alex can't avoid direct contact with the clients. As we know from experience, contracting covid 19 doesn't guarantee you are immune to reinfection or non-infectious.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Eh. As someone who has gotten the shot myself (getting the second one on the 11th), who works on the covid floor of a hospital (ICU), and feels very strongly having seen what the disease does to the most vulnerable of folks... This is something that I feel very strongly about.

I would say he should have the freedom to reject the vaccine and keep his job.

Now, working in a hoispital setting like I do, we wear propper PPE at all times. I would say that if someone refuses vaccines, they should be forced to wear suitable PPE to prevent a possible spreading as much as possible, but if they work in a setting with a vulnerable population, they need to take extra precautions so they limit the possability of spreading illnesses as much as possible

This was the procedure at my hospital for those who refused vaccines before covid. People who refused vaccines were forced to wear PPE all the time. Now we all have to anyway. Doesn't really change much for those who refused vaccines beforehand.

Thanks Sig. I considered PPE but decided, (on behalf of People Inc) that it couldn't be maintained as a long term strategy, once vaccines were available, without causing significant risk.

The crux of this dilemma is that I'm trying to get thoughts about how a dichotomy like this can be approached on purely ethical grounds. While Covid is the vehicle I'm using it is not a Covid specific problem.

OB

 

[Sabertooth]

Alex points out that their actions violate the concept of religious freedom.

In an attempt to resolve the dilemma, both parties agree to submit the problem to an Ethics Committee for a decision based, not on law or constitutionality, but on ethical considerations.


You are a member of that Committee. What do you decide and why?

1. If there is a position that can be serviced without the vaccine requirement, that position is offered to Alex. (This could extend to affiliate companies.)
   
2. If no such position is available, Alex will be terminated, not for his/her religious convictions, but because s/he cannot meet the minimum requirements for any position that is currently available. If Alex has a good work history, s/he will be considered for any #1 positions as they become available. And s/he will be be given positive references.

 

[Occams Barber]

I'm believe irretrievably in Christ; but it is not for ethical reasons, but because I don't trust anything anybody is saying about any of this politicized Covid business, I not only don't see the need for the vaccine, myself, but I am bent against it.

HOWEVER: If I own my house, and require everyone coming in to be vaccinated, they must be vaccinated, or they must not enter. It really is that simple. If I own my business, my employees must toe the line.

Now if Alex can show that he was put on the path of unemployment due to his religion (and not merely due to his choice concerning the vaccine) he might have something to object to.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the employer is being ethically responsible in terminating the employee.

By the way - while I've used Covid as part of the problem this dilemma is not about Covid. It's about how you decide in the face of two (equally ethical?) alternatives.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I've purposely tried to eliminate wiggle room by stipulating that non-contact work is not possible. Alex can't avoid direct contact with the clients. As we know from experience, contracting covid 19 doesn't guarantee you are immune to reinfection or non-infectious.

OB

Nor does vaccination, to what I understand.

 

[Occams Barber]

1. If there is a position that can be serviced without the vaccine requirement, that position is offered to Alex. (This could extend to affiliate companies.)

In the OP I intentionally removed this as a possibility

2. If no such position is available, Alex will be terminated, not for his/her religious convictions, but because s/he cannot meet the minimum requirements for any position that is currently available. If Alex has a good work history, s/he will be considered for any #1 positions as they become available. And s/he will be be given positive references.

I like this answer. You've shifted the argument from Alex's religious conviction to the requirements of the job - where it belongs. I suspect this is the best answer we'll get. It could even be argued that allowing Alex to work without job-required vaccination is giving her an advantage based on her religious beliefs.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Nor does vaccination, to what I understand.

Perhaps - but that is not the topic of this thread.
OB

 

[Mark Quayle]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the employer is being ethically responsible in terminating the employee.

By the way - while I've used Covid as part of the problem this dilemma is not about Covid. It's about how you decide in the face of two (equally ethical?) alternatives.

To be honest, I don't see the termination as necessary, but by rights ok. Ethical? --uh, well... As was done to me, I wasn't terminated, just 'taken off the schedule', which leaves me able to collect unemployment till I find other means of income. (I have my own business now, but no employees. I sub out whatever work I don't do myself, or hire casual labor as needed, or (haha) more often, I tell the customer they "will need to get someone to help me, and I have a suggestion or two").

Yeah, I didn't take Covid as the point, but I have my soapboxes, so....

 

[Mark Quayle]

Perhaps - but that is not the topic of this thread.
OB

I'll argue just about anything, lol. Put a rug in front of me and tell me it is on the floor, and I'll tell you it is on the polyurethane or wax.

 

[Sabertooth]

In the OP I intentionally removed this as a possibility

Every operation has administration.

 

[topher694]

I think a parallel question here is: can a company require an employee to put something in his body that wasn't a part of the original employment agreement?

 

[Occams Barber]

Every operation has administration.

Since it's my theoretical, I've decided that People Inc employs wheelchair-bound, blind people in admin as a matter of policy - and there are no vacancies.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

I think a parallel question here is: can a company require an employee to put something in his body that wasn't a part of the original employment agreement?

I suppose it depends on what you see as a reasonable expectation when it comes to the safety of your customers. There are any number of things not mentioned in an employment contract where a reasonable person would argue its inappropriate. Imagine your supermarket checkout person brandishing a 12 gauge shotgun as they checkout your groceries or a teacher swearing like a trooper in front of the class.

There is probably something about reasonable behaviour here.

OB

 

[Sparagmos]

A Vaccination Dilemma

Alex lives in the Federated Commonwealth of Cornucopia – a western style democracy.

Alex works for People Incorporated, a company whose employees work in close physical proximity to their customers. Think jobs like nurse, teacher, or carer for the aged or people with a disability.

Like most countries, Cornucopia has been plagued by Coronavirus but a vaccine is now available. People Inc has decided that, for the protection of its customers, its staff and the company itself, it must be able to guarantee that all staff are vaccinated. As a result, the Company decides to make vaccination a mandatory condition of employment.

Alex belongs to a religion which cannot morally accept vaccination, based on a link between the vaccine and cell material taken from aborted foetuses. Alex, politely refuses the vaccination on religious grounds. Since People Inc is not able to redeploy Alex to a non-contact role, it decides that, if Alex won’t accept vaccination, it has no choice other than to terminate employment. Alex points out that their actions violate the concept of religious freedom.

In an attempt to resolve the dilemma, both parties agree to submit the problem to an Ethics Committee for a decision based, not on law or constitutionality, but on ethical considerations.


You are a member of that Committee. What do you decide and why?

OB

Alex is laid off due to unavailability of work and allowed to claim unemployment as long as he looks for other work. He is allowed to resume his position at the company if he decides to get vaccinated or if the requirement is removed. The right to return expires after two years.

 

[topher694]

I suppose it depends on what you see as a reasonable expectation when it comes to the safety of your customers. There are any number of things not mentioned in an employment contract where a reasonable person would argue its inappropriate. Imagine your supermarket checkout person brandishing a 12 gauge shotgun as they checkout your groceries or a teacher swearing like a trooper in front of the class.

There is probably something about reasonable expectations here.

Most employment agreements do account for such things, but what you put in your body is a different level entirely, imo. I won't say that it cannot be required. My first thought is for folks who travel oversees, there are common vaccines that are required, but such things are usually clearly articulated before as a requirement of employment (or promotion), not after. Should your employer have the power to tell you what you can and cannot eat? What if you have a peanut allergy? Of course they shouldn't require you to eat peanuts then. It probably sounds like a silly comparison to most of us, but some folks are that concerned about the vaccine and there are some legit allergic reactions to it, and ultimately it is their body, not their employers.

 

[Sparagmos]

Every operation has administration.

So someone else loses their job to make a place for Alex, who isn’t trained or experienced in that department?

Edit: I neglected to read your earlier post where you said only if a position was available.